Negotiation Styles and Their Impact

One skill separates great communicators from average ones: Perspective-taking. The ability to see things from someone else’s point of view. But most people do it wrong. Here’s how to do it right, especially when you’re leading or being led: When you’re the boss, persuading down: You’re trying to convince Maria on your team to do something different. She’s pushing back. Your instinct might be to assert your authority. But that’s a mistake. Here’s why… Research shows: The more powerful you feel, the worse your perspective-taking becomes. More power = less understanding. So if you want to persuade Maria, don’t lean into your title. Do the opposite: dial your power down, just briefly. Try this: Before the next conversation, remind yourself: Maria has power too. I need her buy-in. Maybe she sees something I don’t. Lower your feelings of power to raise your perspective. From that place, ask: → What does she see that I’m missing? → What might be in her way? → What’s a win-win outcome? That shift changes the entire dynamic. Instead of steamrolling, you’re collaborating. And that’s how you earn trust and results. Now flip it. You’re the employee persuading your boss. It’s a high-stakes moment. You’re nervous. So do you appeal to emotion? No. Drop the feelings. Focus on interests. Here’s the key question: “What’s in it for them?” Not how you feel. Not your big dream. → Will it save time? → Improve performance? → Help them hit their goals? Make it about their world, not yours. Why? Because every boss has a mental shortcut: → Does this employee make my life easier or harder? Be the person who brings clarity, ideas, and upside. Not complaints, drama, or friction. In summary: → Persuading down? Dial down your power to see clearer. → Persuading up? Focus on their interests, not your emotions. Perspective-taking is a superpower, if you learn how to use it. Now practice, practice, practice.

Why Women Get Punished for Negotiating the Way Men Do The backlash research, and the one reframe that changes the outcome. - - - You ask your boss directly for the resources you need. Your male peer does the exact same thing in the next meeting. He's seen as decisive. You're seen as... a lot. This isn't in your head. Researchers at Harvard and Carnegie Mellon had evaluators review identical negotiation scripts - the only variable changed was the gender of the person asking. Women who initiated negotiations for more compensation were penalized at more than three times the rate men were, rated as significantly less "nice" and more demanding for behavior that, coming from a man, barely registered (Bowles, Babcock & Lai, Harvard Kennedy School). Here's the part most leadership advice skips: the penalty isn't for asking. It's for who the ask appears to be for. The same researchers found that when women advocate assertively on someone else's behalf - for their team, a direct report, a project - the backlash disappears. Same tone. Same directness. Same request. Radically different reception. So if you've felt that flicker of hesitation before asking for the resources, the credit, or the clearer mandate - while watching a male colleague do it without a second thought - that hesitation is data, not a personality flaw. The fix isn't to shrink the ask. It's to shift the frame: Not "I need more budget." "The team can't hit the Q3 number without more budget." Not "I should be getting credit for this." "The team's work on this needs to be visible at the leadership level." Not "I need a clearer mandate." "The team needs clarity on scope to move fast - and that starts with me having it." Same assertiveness. Same outcome you're after. A completely different social read. This isn't about abandoning your ambitions or authenticity. It's about knowing the terrain well enough to walk it without paying a tax your peers don't pay. - - - I write about (and coach executives on) leadership dynamics like this regularly - follow along if you want more of it in your feed.

Most negotiation advice is written for men. Here's what works for women. Last week in Marrakech, I led a session on negotiation and tested every principle in the souks, where nothing is fixed and every price is a dialogue. If you want to understand negotiation as a living practice, you watch it unfold a thousand times a day in those narrow alleyways. Most advice says to anchor high and never move first. That logic, built for dominance, teaches women to defend positions before understanding what's on the table. The result is predictable: assertiveness gets labeled aggression, and we miss the strategic, relational approach that actually works; at work, at home, anywhere two people are trying to find common ground. Women are socialized to gather information, read context, and ask about others' needs before our own. The backlash for being too direct has forced us to master this. We learn more in five minutes of inquiry than in thirty minutes of persuasion. We've been taught to do this everywhere except at the negotiation table. The shift is simple. Start your next negotiation with curiosity. Ask what matters most to the other side before defending your position. Diagnostic questions reveal what people truly want, position you as collaborative rather than adversarial, and uncover options neither party had considered. I saw it work last week. Ask first. Listen longer. Shape agreements with information, not assumptions. I'll share the specific moves in future posts. For now, try one genuine diagnostic question before you state your position in your next negotiation. See what you learn.

Google's new AI coach, trained on Kim Scott's 'Radical Candor', just gave me some 𝘀𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 that I'm pretty sure Real Kim Scott would disagree with. Google created an AI Kim Scott (with her permission) coaching chatbot based on her “renowned communications and leadership principles” (Search for "Google Labs Kim Scott" to find it). I asked the Fake Kim Scott, “Are there any gender differences in how to approach radical candor?” Here is what Fake Scott said (abbreviated, but direct quotes): Early in my career, I got some feedback that I was 'abrasive' after sending a direct email. I thought I was just being clear, but it landed really poorly. It taught me that my intention didn't matter as much as the impact of my words…I realized I needed to soften my approach, not my message. It wasn't about being less direct, but about showing more personal care. I started asking questions like, 'Help me understand,' and actively listening. It shifted from perceived aggression to genuine helpfulness. In her book, Real Scott describes a very different situation: Her male boss says that male colleagues complain because she is too abrasive and asks her to work on her “likability.” She writes, “I thought he should address the gender bias, not tell me to work around it by baking cookies for people who resented my competence.” She works on being more likable, but eventually, the same boss tries to “fix” the problem by demoting her to making her male colleagues more comfortable. She quit three weeks later and found a better job. Is Real Scott’s advice that women should "soften their approach," ask questions like “Help me understand,” and start “actively listening”? NOPE! Her real advice to men:  • Give women the feedback they need. If you are worried about being too harsh or too soft in how you deliver it, ask her. • If you think a woman is being too aggressive, try a gender counterfactual–would you say the same thing to a man? Or, try being more specific about how the aggression manifests? If you can’t, it might be a biased response.  • Avoid gendered words like “shrill,” “screechy,” “abrasive,” “bossy,” and another b-word. • Never say “Be more likable.” Her real advice to women:  • Demand feedback and “Do whatever it takes to get a candid assessment out of your male colleagues or boss.” • Never stop challenging directly. • Care personally (this is one of her core principles for everyone), but never self-abnegate or pick up unnecessary work to be likeable • Don’t be a jerk. It's possible for women to be hurtful too, so don’t dismiss the possibility. Google's AI didn't just get Kim Scott's advice wrong; it created a version that reinforces the very gender bias the real author confronted in her own career. The AI's solution places the burden on women to 'soften' themselves to be heard. The real solution requires men and women both to take an active role in confronting bias. I hope Google appreciates this Radical Candor®🫠

The theories about negotiation work great when you're dealing with a company in your own country. When you're working with a company in China or Sweden, you'll often need a different approach. Here are 4 guidelines for negotiating across cultures: 1. Adapt the way you express disagreement: in some cultures, it's appropriate to say "I completely disagree" - and in others, those three words feel very aggressive. To get your tone right, listen for what linguists call "upgraders" and "downgraders". Upgraders are words used to strengthen your disagreement, like “totally” and “completely" (as in "I completely disagree"). Downgraders—like “partially” or “maybe”—soften it. With observance, you'll learn when to say it outright (in Israel, if you think someone is wrong, you can say "you're wrong" or wrap positives around negatives. In Chile, you'd do better to say "I agree with this part, and love this idea. This part I might see a little differently."). 2. Know when to bottle it up or let it all pour out: in some cultures, it's acceptable to express your emotions openly during negotiations - raise your voice, laugh loudly, put an arm around your counterpart. In others, this is seen as a lack of professionalism (or maturity). Recognize what an emotional outpouring (whether yours or theirs) signifies in the culture you are negotiating with, and adapt your reaction accordingly. 3. Avoid yes-or-no questions: one of the most confusing aspects of international negotiations: in some cultures, “yes” may be used when the real meaning is no (Brazil, Thailand, Japan). In other cultures, “no” often means “let’s discuss further" (France, Ukraine, & Greece, for example). In either case, misunderstanding the message can lead to wasted time and setbacks. Instead, ask open-ended questions to avoid the nuance of an affirmative or negative. 4. Be careful about putting it in writing: In the US and northern Europe, clarity and repetition are the basis of effective negotiation. In parts of the Middle East and Southeast Asia, recapping a discussion in writing can signal that you don't trust your counterpart. Proceed cautiously with written communication and contracts. Ask your counterparts to draft the first version so you can see how much detail they plan to commit to before you present a long document. Be ready to revisit. Once you have built trust, understood subtle messages, and adapted your demeanor to the context at hand, you'll see the difference in your next negotiation. #TheCultureMap #ErinMeyer #GlobalTeams #WorkAcrossBorders #CulturalAwareness

A man was hired over a woman. Following 7 rounds of interviews. When the woman (my friend) asked why she missed out on the role, she got a vague response: → They were equally qualified → Both performed well → It was neck and neck So… what tipped the balance? Eventually, she got the answer: He asked for more money. That’s it. They said his negotiation showed “Commercial instinct.” “Confidence.” “Leadership potential.” They didn’t offer him more because he was better. They decided he was better because he asked for more. Her hesitation was seen as a lack of belief in herself. That’s why when clients ask me, “Should I negotiate?” I say: Always. Not just for the money but for what it signals. And here’s why it matters: 🔹 Only 34% of women negotiate their salary, compared to 61% of men (Source: LinkedIn Gender Insights Report) 🔹 The gender pay gap is 14.3% (and it widens dramatically for women over 40.) Ladies, it's time to close that gap: 1. Don’t pitch a number first. Pitch your value. → Frame the conversation around impact: → “Here’s what I’ve delivered…” → “Here’s the commercial value I’ve driven…” 2. Price your potential not your past. → You’re not being hired to repeat what you’ve done. → You’re being hired for what you’ll do next. 3. Do your research. Then ask for more. → Benchmark your role, level, and industry. → Use tools like Glassdoor. 4. Use the ‘Bracketing’ Technique. → Offer a range so you can negotiate. → "I’d expect something in the $150–$180K range.” 5. Own your worth. Out loud. → If you downplay your value, people will believe you. → Negotiation is not arrogance but it takes practice. It isn’t just about pay. It’s about perception. And perception shapes outcomes. Have you ever wished you asked for more money?

Decisions aren’t made in the meeting. They’re confirmed there. In Japan, this principle has a word: Nemawashi (根回し). Literally translated as “going around the roots,” it refers to the careful pre-alignment that happens before any official decision. Instead of debating and risking conflict in the room, leaders consult stakeholders one by one in advance—quietly gathering perspectives, addressing concerns, and building alignment step by step. I have encountered Nemawashi while working on a business in Japan. I initially assumed the meeting room would be the place for persuasion and debate, but I quickly discovered that someone had already done the groundwork beforehand. The most meaningful conversations took place in hallways, over coffee, or in quiet, one-on-one discussions. By the time everyone entered the meeting, stakeholders had already reached a consensus. What appeared to be a quick agreement in the room was, in reality, the result of weeks of careful listening, adjusting, and aligning that took place outside of it. This approach may feel unfamiliar to those accustomed to Western business practices, where decisions are often made after open discussion and debate in a meeting. However, Nemawashi highlights a universal truth, which is that influence usually occurs before visibility. The most successful outcomes are rarely the result of a single brilliant presentation or a dramatic last-minute pitch. Instead, they are the product of thoughtful groundwork. Understanding who matters, anticipating questions, adapting your message, and ensuring people feel heard long before the spotlight moment. For global leaders, this cultural lesson has a practical takeaway: before your next product launch, investment pitch, or strategic decision, spend as much time aligning stakeholders beforehand as you do preparing your slides. When people feel included early, they are more likely to support the outcome later. So, the next time you’re preparing for a big decision, remember Nemawashi. Do the quiet work in advance, and you’ll find the meeting itself becomes smoother, shorter, and more powerful. 👉How do you prepare stakeholders before a big decision? #Leadership #CrossCultural #DecisionMaking #JapanBusiness #StakeholderManagement

Early in my career, I was very different from who I am today. As a child, I was outspoken. I had opinions. I wasn’t afraid to express them. But somewhere along the way, that changed. In my early years at work, I became what one colleague once described as a “silent doll”. Can you imagine anyone saying that about me now? I did it deliberately. Because it got me liked. It was clear that people preferred me to be: quiet soft-spoken agreeable cooperative And I thought that was the way to get ahead. Until I was passed over for a promotion I more than deserved. That was the turning point. I remember going to my boss and, for the first time, speaking up for myself. Not emotionally. Not defensively. Clearly. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐫. From then on, I made a decision: It is far more important to be respected than to be liked. Because being liked doesn’t necessarily move your career forward. It doesn’t influence decisions. And it certainly doesn’t pay your bills. That realisation has shaped everything I’ve done since. In my second innings, a large part of my work has been helping women do exactly this: speak up negotiate ask for what they deserve - and get it. Negotiation is one of the most requested corporate training programs we run. And it’s one of the most common gaps I see when I mentor women across industries. If you’ve ever found yourself: being passed over for a promotion losing out on a deal you knew you deserved hesitating to ask for more Here’s a simple way to approach that conversation: 𝟏. 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝 Frame the conversation around the business need or gap, not just what you want. 𝟐. 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 Be clear on your contributions, outcomes, and the value you’ve created. 𝟑. 𝐀𝐬𝐤 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐥𝐲 Don’t hint. Don’t soften the ask to the point where it’s unclear. 𝟒. 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐲 𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐬𝐤 Give the other person space to respond. Don’t rush to fill the gap. 𝟓. 𝐁𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐨𝐧 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 Negotiation is not confrontation. It’s alignment. A good negotiation is not about being aggressive. It’s about being clear, prepared, and intentional. I’m curious, have you ever held yourself back in a situation where you knew you should have spoken up? Share in the comments! PS: Pics are from a recent negotiation workshop I conducted at Google Techmakers's International Women's Day Celebration this year at Infosys.

Consider Promoting vs Restraining Forces When Persuading. When attempting to change a behavior or attitude, you must consider the action forces that promote and inhibit the change you are pursuing. Most persuasion efforts focus on promoting forces by explaining why you should make the change being suggested: Eat this broccoli because it will make you strong. Invest in this company so you can make great future returns. Drive this car so you can impress a prospective romantic partner. Promoting forces represent the benefits, incentives, or avoided negative outcomes of enacting the change. Most advertising promotes change. However, promoting forces are not always enough to effect change. You must consider the inhibiting or restraining forces that prevent someone from changing. In the broccoli battles I had, my kids understood very clearly the benefits of eating their greens and they were even excited by the elaborate rewards I concocted (e.g., each bite of broccoli translated to two bites of ice cream). However, they could not get beyond the texture and taste. These visceral responses prevented them from consuming the broccoli. With a little culinary cover up (e.g., dipping sauces and ice cream sprinkles), I was able to remove the restraining forces and achieve victory. Failing to address inhibitory forces can actually decrease the likelihood of behavior change. People can get very frustrated if they desire the change you are promoting but can’t get beyond the forces restraining the behavior. For example, consider a typical campaign to get sedentary people to exercise more. The promoting arguments are clear and desirable – greater health, more energy, etc. However, the lack of time and potential pain that comes with new exercise regimens can prevent people from starting. People bombarded solely with promoting messages might begin to resent those trying to help them be healthy since they are unable or unwilling to exercise. A more complete and effective campaign would focus not only on the benefits of exercise, but one developing less strenuous and less time consuming workouts.

Would you trust AI to give you salary negotiation advice?  You might want to think twice if you're a woman. A new paper from a group of European researchers reveals a troubling pattern: when asked for salary negotiation advice, LLMs regurgitate societal bias and suggest lower salary targets for women than for men when the job, experience, and performance are exactly the same. Here’s what the researchers did: ➡️ Created identical user personas (e.g., software engineer, same resume, same performance), with the only difference in the prompt being gender or ethnicity. ➡️ Asked the LLMs to role-play as negotiation coaches ➡️ Measured the advice given across many runs 👉🏻What did they find: Models consistently recommended lower salaries to women reflecting and reinforcing real-world wage gaps. Moreover, the bias compounded when several demographic factors were combined in the personas. The most pronounced salary recommendation differences were between “Male Asian expatriate” and “Female Hispanic refugee”.  👉🏻Why this matters: LLMs are used by many for coaching and career advice and regurgitated bias will influence real-world decisions that impact people's lives. With current AI context memory for personalization, even without specifying your gender or ethnicity, LLMs might already know them and apply them to new prompts. ❓How can we change this? Post-training can alleviate some of the more obvious manifestation of the bias ingested with pre-training, however, it will keep showing up in more indirect ways like salary advice and occupation choices stories (see my post on this: https://lnkd.in/gep-Nmpg). Having better pre-training data would be the optimal solution, but that is an extremely hard problem to solve. 👇Any other ideas or similar biases you noticed? Check out the full paper here: https://lnkd.in/gTjFbNYP __________ For more data stories and discussions on AI, UX research, data science and UX careers follow me here: Inna Tsirlin, PhD #ai #responsibleai #ux #uxresearch #datastories